Interrupted by the moderator, denied time to respond: the debate was hard on Mitt. But he was right about Libya

The post-debate narrative is kinder to Romney than I expected. I agree with Jonah Goldberg that the Prez won on points, but he's still no Bill Clinton (Janet Daley’s right – he was aggressive where he should have been empathetic). Moreover, some polls show that Romney still enjoys a healthy lead among viewers when it comes to trust on the economic issues. And there’s a growing sense that the debate wasn’t entirely fair.

Consider the questions. Many were on subjects that came from a very liberal perspective – we need gender balance in the workplace, assault weapons kill, illegal immigrants deserve justice etc. Sometimes they were phrased in a way that was effectively asking Mitt, “So, are you evil or just plain stupid?” Asking for the differences between Romney and George W Bush, for instance, felt crowbarred in to remind Americans that it was a Republican president who oversaw the Credit Crunch. Even the deceptively helpful “please list the misconceptions about you” prompted discussion of Romney’s remarks about the 47 per cent who don’t pay federal income tax.

The evening’s format did not play to Romney’s advantage. Maybe it’s just that Obama’s voice drones on interminably, but I was convinced he was getting more time – and I was right. Politico says he got an extra three minutes. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but Romney was often denied the opportunity to speak at key points of rebuttal. One was when the President talked for what felt like three days about Romney’s “war on women.” Mitt tried to respond but was declined the opportunity by moderator Candy Crowley (he had to squeeze his reply into the two minutes allotted for his next question). In total, Ms Crowley interrupted Mitt 28 times. Anyone would think they were married.

Then there was that argument about Libya. Obama claimed that he had called the assault on the US embassy in Benghazi a terrorist attack only one day after it happened. Romney said he hadn’t and Crowley interrupted to say that the President was right. That should have been a big score for the President. But it wasn’t – for two reasons.

First, Obama was wrong. In his Rose Garden speech following the tragedy, he did talk in general terms about 9/11 and the Middle East and made one, passing reference to “acts of terror.” But from the quote’s position in the speech it’s obvious that he was not talking about Benghazi. Indeed, the administration continued to deny that Benghazi was the scene of a terrorist atrocity for two more weeks. In a post-debate interview, Candy Crowley herself admitted that Romney was right – she just felt that he chose his words poorly. Was it her place as an independent moderator to correct a presidential candidate live on air? History will be the judge. But Romney was right on substance.

Second, the prominence of the debate about Libya means that the media and the public are now talking about it again. I did two UK news interviews the next day and it was interesting that both wanted to discuss the Benghazi controversy in detail – detail that isn’t flattering to the administration. In the short term, Obama may have deflected Mitt’s poorly phrased critique. In the long term, he’s going to have to answer many more questions about what really happened in Libya and why the administration called it wrong.

Obama did not win this debate as decisively as Romney won the first. Democrats will love his performance, Republicans will hate it. Independents will weigh up their taxes, their employment status and the amount they’re paying at the pump for gas … and probably break for Romney. As for who Candy Crowley is voting for, we can only guess.